Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm completely fine with it, cause it would suck if I wanted to use a model I liked and couldn't. The only thing I'd like to know ahead of time is actual titans (knights would even be fine).

tneva82 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

Umm knight might have been true per codex but with price cuts, warlord traits and relics no more

Honestly the whole Codex system of GW is p2w if you look at it that way, because all armies with indexes were or are atm just plain worse then their counterparts. And allready we have the problem that the SM codex one of ther earlier in 8th is not up to par beyond a a certain army that sees tournament play.

From what I understand about FW, is that they make a few very specific and undercosted units for a limited number of factions. I generally do not care what the other guy is having, because FW or not, it is going to be better then what I have. But on the other hand, although this I know only from other people telling me that, FW has the odd rule of giving or making new models for space marines, excluding GK. Given that I wouldn't want to play vs FW units, vs other people which armies have FW support, be my guest and play with what ever is legal, but I don't need to lower the expiriance any more, it is already rather low.

I've got no problem, and neither have my opponents. In fact, 4 out of the 6 of my group who regularly play 40k own and use FW in most of their games.

However, if we are going to be using quite a wild FW model or a list that uses powerful ones, we usually give a heads up for courtesy.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

Karol wrote:
From what I understand about FW, is that they make a few very specific and undercosted units for a limited number of factions. I generally do not care what the other guy is having, because FW or not, it is going to be better then what I have. But on the other hand, although this I know only from other people telling me that, FW has the odd rule of giving or making new models for space marines, excluding GK. Given that I wouldn't want to play vs FW units, vs other people which armies have FW support, be my guest and play with what ever is legal, but I don't need to lower the expiriance any more, it is already rather low.

All of the FW units are overcosted: DKoK for exemple pays more per regular Guardsmen then AM.
Militia Squads of R&H pay equal to regular IG guardsmen but have half the armor, no orders and the profile of conscripts.
Dreads of FW are better but more expensive pts wise then regular dreads.

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

meleti wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

They still don't come close to -Bs eldar shenanigans.
Still get outperformed by the basic Tau gunline atm, granted the tau gunline is bs atm so there's that....

funny some guys are so harsh about Fw rules but they was ok to play against 200 brimstone costing 3 points and inv 4++ or old dark reapers, just to bring two well know example, and they still talk about bad FW rules/cost design.... oh maybe they was the same playing the 200 brimstone i forgot

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

They still don't come close to -Bs eldar shenanigans.
Still get outperformed by the basic Tau gunline atm, granted the tau gunline is bs atm so there's that....

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms, but I like a lot of FW stuff. It’s cool to see new units that don’t normally hit the table. I have no problems with it at all.

If you don't have anything but ripper swarms in 6000 pts minimum something is seriously wrong.

And in any case warlords vs 6000 pts worth of ripper swarms would be easiest victory for tyranids ever. 181 units of swarms, he can kill 5 units max per turn. 6 turns, 30 units. You just swamp objectives and win. He kills 90 bases out of 543. Whee.

a post like sinful hero post shows a lot about general game knowledge here.

meleti wrote:
TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

I'm not seeing it, at all. Compare them to Hammerheads instead of Riptides. The Hammerhead costs 100 points base, the Tigershark costs 245 points base. So that's 200 points for a pair of Hammerheads. Both the tanks and the Tigershark can carry the same pair of ion cannons at the same price, so the only difference in firepower is 4x burst cannons on the tanks vs. 2x burst cannon and 2x missile pod on the Tigershark. The Tigershark has +1 T and -1 to hit, the Hammerheads have almost double the wounds. Mobility doesn't matter when most of your firepower has cross-table range. Maybe the Tigershark isn't a terrible unit, and there's a case to be made for taking it? But it's hardly on the "best unit in the game" shortlist.

 blackmage wrote:
funny some guys are so harsh about Fw rules but they was ok to play against 200 brimstone costing 3 points and inv 4++ or old dark reapers, just to bring two well know example, and they still talk about bad FW rules/cost design.... oh maybe they was the same playing the 200 brimstone i forgot

Considering that FW is GW in disguise, they sure have an abissmal testing and balancing team....
Also there's the fact that we have to pay for CA, which is basically a glorified balance update.....
Come to think of it, smite was their idea, -bs was their idea, scatbikes last edition were their idea, introducing SH's into baseline 40k was their idea...
One could become suspicious .

I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

you can't even field a titan except the warhound in a normal match pts. wise.
And if you field a warhound you might aswell field a full knight army, they are better and more cost effective.

I always notify my opponent before I bring out my forgeworld, I run a full Elysian drop troop army with support planes and usually get a response of it being OP and strong and then I loose almost every single time. Usually thats when they understand I buy my forgeworld because I prefer the looks and narrative of an aerial mass drop army, even used the 101st airborne transfers on them not bought them because its this months hotness (not saying you cant buy this months hotness, it just takes me that long to paint armies by the time its fully painted its about 3 steps behind everyone else). Everyone I have played has had no objection to fighting them again and I usually get asked from a bystander to play them with my Elysians slowly changing everyones opinion of forgeworld

Play with your models - any or all of them. I have no interest in disrespecting someone's hobby time and effort, not to mention their hard-earned money spent.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

I though people just bought them from Russia or China for 1/5th the cost? Everyone here who has some FW models, says that russian models are better quality.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

Well the question is how rough can most people take. It is one thing to get beaten by a list, but it is another when your opponent start to experiment in different ways he can beat you, having even more fun, while you get nothing of it.

Karol wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

I though people just bought them from Russia or China for 1/5th the cost? Everyone here who has some FW models, says that russian models are better quality.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

Well the question is how rough can most people take. It is one thing to get beaten by a list, but it is another when your opponent start to experiment in different ways he can beat you, having even more fun, while you get nothing of it.

Again. 90% of FW is weak atm. Waaaaay weaker then Codex armies, in many cases even more weak then Codex GK.
then there's 7.5% sidegrades and 2.5% units that are good but not GW levels incompetence broken

Well I have a strage feeling that if people were actually cool with FW stuff, the only things I would see is those 2.5% units.
I know that people that played in big tournaments here had fireraptors, and a guy has some of the big demons. No idea if they are worth playing though.
Ton of people own recasts though. In general it is hard for me to check if a model is FW or Kromlech, other then FW models having really ugly faces for models.

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

So, a subsidiary? Definition:

a company controlled by a holding company.
synonyms: subordinate company, branch, branch plant, division, subdivision, derivative, subset, offshoot
"two major subsidiaries"

But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

I have this problem using DKoK, so I need to bring two list, one with their rules and one using the codex AM to be able to play without arguing too much with other people if they're not fine with FW

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.

Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.

IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?

Everyone always have veto power over their oponents army, except if they entered a tournament.
If you don't like your oponents army, the color of his shoes, or something else, just walk away.
You might end up in a situation were no one wants to play against you, but then the problem probably wasn't with the oponents army list, but with you.

I don't have any more of a problem with forgeworld than with some other units, but I value my time and want a fun experience.
If an oponent is being an a** in any way, be that army list building or something else, I concede, pack up my models and walk away. It has happened twice in 25 years of warhammer/40k gaming, so I don't do it often, but when someone tries to push the rules or list building to far I rather be painting my models for the next game.

/ Best regards, Fredrik

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

No way anybody can complain about bringing FW with the state of Eldar and Dark Eldar codexes.

I could field a full fw army and still get my gak put in by some TAC Eldar/DE list.

 Huron black heart wrote:
I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

This is probably the case for a lot of people, a lack of familiarity with Forgeworld units could exacerbate perceptions of any unit that seems strong as being "overpowered", because they don't know the unit's weaknesses or limitations.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

So, a subsidiary? Definition:

a company controlled by a holding company.
synonyms: subordinate company, branch, branch plant, division, subdivision, derivative, subset, offshoot
"two major subsidiaries"

Not quite in the UK the company is the legal trading entities. A wholely owned subsidiary company would be a seperate legal wntity, it must be registed independently, produce its own accounts etc etc.

Forgeworld is a trading name of GW PLC it's still legally GW PLC and hence not required to be registered with companies house as Forgeworld PLC or generate accounts etc.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2000 – 2018. GW, Games Workshop, Citadel, Forge World, Warhammer, the twin-tailed comet logo, Warhammer Forge, Warhammer 40,000, the ‘Aquila’ Double-headed eagle logo, Space Marine, 40K, 40,000, Imperial Armour, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, Stormcast Eternals, The Horus Heresy, The Horus Heresy Eye and all associated logos, illustrations, images, names, creatures, races, vehicles, locations, weapons, characters, and the distinctive likenesses thereof, are either ® or TM, and/or © Games Workshop Limited, variably registered around the world. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop Limited, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. Registered in England and Wales - Company No. 01467092. VAT No. GB 580853421

If you search that on companies house

GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED

01467092 - Incorporated on 17 December 1979
Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG7 2WS

As to why do they segregate the business so heavily, GW is heavily subdivided to limit leaks and make identifying the leaker much easier due to the tiny number of people who knew the information.

I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.